Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: A cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes

BMC Public Health

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Capon, Adam ^a,b   Gillespie, James ^a   Rolfe, Margaret ^c   Smith, Wayne ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b Environmental Health Branch   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

Nanotechnologies; Perception; Risk; Stakeholders; Trust

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; AUSTRALIA; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; MALE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; TRUST; UNCERTAINTY; UNIVERSITY;

ATTITUDE; AUSTRALIA; COMMERCE; COMMUNICATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TRUST; UNCERTAINTY; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84928802528     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712458     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1795-1     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Yearley S. Bridging the science? policy divide in urban air-quality management: evaluating ways to make models more robust through public engagement. Environ Plann C Gov Policy. 2006;24(5):701-14.
2. Dietrich H, Schibeci R. Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Underst Sci. 2003;12(4):381-401.
3. Few R, Brown K, Tompkins EL. Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim Pol. 2007;7(1):46-59.
4. Corley E, Scheufele D, Hu Q. Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2009;11(7):1573-85.
5. Duncan TV. The communication challenges presented by nanofoods. Nat Nano. 2011;6(11):683-8.
6. Foss Hansen S, Maynard A, Baun A, Tickner JA. Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology. Nat Nano. 2008;3(8):444-7.
7. Gregory R, Dieckmann N, Peters E, Failing L, Long G, Tusler M. Deliberative disjunction: expert and public understanding of outcome uncertainty. Risk Anal. 2012;32(12):2071-83.
8. Murashov V, Schulte P, Howard J. Progression of occupational risk management with advances in nanomaterials. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2011;9(1):D12-22.
9. Pidgeon N, Harthorn B, Satterfield T. Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies. Emerging Challenges Risk Analysis. 2011;31(11):1694-700.
10. Shatkin JA, North W. Perspectives on risks of nanomaterials and nanotechnologies: advancing the science. Risk Anal. 2010;30(11):1627-33.
11. Williams RA, Kulinowski KM, White R, Louis G. Risk Characterization for Nanotechnology. Risk Anal. 2010;30(11):1671-9.
12. Australian Office of Nanotechnology. National Nanotechnology Strategy (NNS) Annual Report 2007-08. 2007.
13. Editorial. The dose makes the poison. Nat Nano. 2011;6(6):329.
14. Wijnhoven SWP, Peijnenburg WJGM, Herberts CA, Hagens WI, Oomen AG, Heugens EHW, et al. Nano-silver - a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3(2):109-38.
15. Beaudrie CH, Kandlikar M. Horses for courses: risk information and decision making in the regulation of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(4):1477-88.
16. Canady RA. The uncertainty of nanotoxicology: report of a society for risk analysis workshop. Risk Anal. 2010;30(11):1663-70.
17. Maynard AD, Warheit DB, Philbert MA. The New toxicology of sophisticated materials: nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicol Sci. 2011;120 suppl 1:S109-29.
18. Morris J, Willis J, De Martinis D, Hansen B, Laursen H, Sintes JR, et al. Science policy considerations for responsible nanotechnology decisions. Nat Nano. 2011;6(2):73-7.
19. Vogel D. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. USA: Princeton University Press; 2012.
20. Siegrist M. Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2010;16(4):837-46.
21. Katz E, Solomon F, Mee W, Lovel R. Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(5):531-45.
22. Capon A, Smith W, Gillespie JA: Navigating public health chemicals policy in Australia: a policy maker's and practitioner's guide. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin 2013, 23(12):217-227.
23. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople's and Experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal. 2007;27(1):59-69.
24. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nano. 2009;4(11):752-8.
25. IPSOS Social Research Institute. Community Attitudes Towards Emerging Technology Issues - Nanotechnology. 2012.
26. Social Psychology Research Unit. 2011 Monitor - The Swinburne National Technology and Society Monitor. 2011.
27. Cobb M, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res. 2004;6(4):395-405.
28. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite. 2008;51(2):283-90.
29. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(2):195-206.
30. Ho S, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. Value Predispositions, Mass Media, and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology: The Interplay of Public and Experts. Sci Commun September 14 2010 doi:10.1177/1075547010380386
31. Retzbach A, Marschall J, Rahnke M, Otto L, Maier M. Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(12):6231-44.
32. European Commission (2012): Eurobarometer 73.1 (Jan-Feb 2010). TNS OPINION & SOCIAL, Brussels [Producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5000 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11428
33. McAllister I, Bean C, Kay Gibson R, Pietsch J. Australian Election Study, 2010. Canberra: The Australian National University; 2011.
34. Population Survey Development. Pre-Testing in Survey Development: An Australian Bureau of Statistics Perspective. 2001.
35. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. USA: Wiley; 2014.
36. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston DH. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nano. 2007;2(12):732-4.
37. Siegrist M, Cousin M-E, Kastenholz H, Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite. 2007;49(2):459-66.
38. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nano. 2009;4(2):95-8.
39. Carbonell R. Safety concerns over nanoparticles in some sunscreens. In. ABC News. Australia: ABC News March 5 2013 Online http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3703318.htm [accessed 24/04/15]
40. Armitage C. Sunscreen scaremongers given the slip, slop, slap. In. Sydney Morning HeraldAustralia April 1 2013. Online http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1400394/sunscreen-scaremongers-given-the-slip-slop-slap/ [accessed 24/04/15]
41. Carbonell R. Fresh concern over nano-particles hidden in sunscreen. In. ABC News Australia: ABC News March 5 2013. Online http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-05/fresh-concern-over-nano-particles-in-sunscreen/4552522 [accessed 24/04/15]
42. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res. 2010;12(2):373-81.
43. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih T-J, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS. Religious beliefs and public attitudes towards nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nano. 2009;4(2):91-4.
44. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(5):546-58.
45. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nano. 2009;4(2):87-90.
46. Stampfli N, Siegrist M, Kastenholz H. Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis. J Risk Res. 2010;13(3):353-65.
47. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding Sci October 9 2009 doi:10.1177/0963662509347815.
48. Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH. Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent U.S. Nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 2011;31(11):1734-48.
49. Cobb M. Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(4):1533-48.
50. Market Attitude Research Services. Australian Community Attitudes Held About Nanotechnology - Trends 2005 to 2011. 2011.
51. Viklund MJ. Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: a cross-national study. Risk Anal. 2003;23(4):727-38.
52. Earle TC. Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk Anal. 2010;30(4):541-74.
53. Bronfman NC, Vázquez EL. A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Anal. 2011;31(12):1919-34.
54. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):713-20.
55. Scheufele D, Lewenstein B. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7(6):659-67.
56. Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 1994;14(6):1085-96.